Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI subpoenaed Apple for data of Sci-Hub founder

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 272 posts

Re: FBI subpoenaed Apple for data of Sci-Hub founder

#41

Post by SirSourdough »

jMyles wrote: post #33
kingsuper20 wrote: post #27

Given the provenance of most (all?) of the material on Sci-Hub, the copyright issues here seem laughable to me. Fruitless speculation about the FBI aside, you do have to wonder about the future of IP generally in the world. There's a sort of evolutionary pressure going on right now between different countries' approach to the matter and I can't say that the US-style rules will hold (or more realistically, be imposed)…

It seems so absolutely obvious that a jurisdiction adopting a "there is no such thing as IP" approach will have a huge advantage. What's the reason this hasn't happened?

I mean, that’s pretty much China’s position with regards to other countries IP as I understand it. There’s just a lot of power still held by the nations that do support a US-style approach to IP, so many countries have incentive not to ignore IP laws.

Re: FBI subpoenaed Apple for data of Sci-Hub founder

#42

Post by vaylian »

xNeil wrote: post #32

I'm not sure I understand the concept of paid access to scientific research, so I'd be grateful if someone with more knowledge of the topic could explain it to me. Governments fund universities, people donate large amounts of money to universities, and a large portion of the population has student debt because of how expensive tuition is. Why are they charging for access to research at these institutions then?

You are completely right that the current system is nonsense. It only exists, because back in the day there was no internet. Scientists needed publishers that would print and distribute scientific results. But publishers might deny publication in their journals if they thought the science is not good enough. Thereby the publishers established a reputation system. For example, it is really hard to get a scientific paper accepted to the journal Nature. But if you manage to do it, a lot of people will assume that it is good science.

The current system doesn't provide much value in terms of printing and distribution (even though some journals still do printing). The thing that keeps these journals alive is their reputation as filters for bad science. But even that is questionable, as proven by a lot of bad science making it into top journals.

And lastly, science needs funding. If you say: My science is published in journal X, then the funding agency will think it is good science/bad science without actually trying to understand what your science is about.

Re: FBI subpoenaed Apple for data of Sci-Hub founder

#43

Post by cyrksoft »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #36
xNeil wrote: post #32

I'm not sure I understand the concept of paid access to scientific research, so I'd be grateful if someone with more knowledge of the topic could explain it to me. Governments fund universities, people donate large amounts of money to universities, and a large portion of the population has student debt because of how expensive tuition is. Why are they charging for access to research at these institutions then?

You'd think its because peer review costs money, but they are largely unpaid for that work. So, there's no real answer beyond "capitalism."

What's exactly capitalistic about this? They charge for something they have no property or own. In my experience (and every researcher I know does this) researchers have their own websites where they publish a free pdf version of the research (without the format of the published paper, just a simpler pdf version) or even email it to you if you ask them to (those without a website, for example). I am not sure what exactly is "capitalism" about these journals.

Re: FBI subpoenaed Apple for data of Sci-Hub founder

#44

Post by TeMPOraL »

SirSourdough wrote: post #41
jMyles wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems so absolutely obvious that a jurisdiction adopting a "there is no such thing as IP" approach will have a huge advantage. What's the reason this hasn't happened?

I mean, that’s pretty much China’s position with regards to other countries IP as I understand it. There’s just a lot of power still held by the nations that do support a US-style approach to IP, so many countries have incentive not to ignore IP laws.

IIRC, even they have been forced to increase enforcement of western IP rights over the last decade, because US has been pressuring them to (back before Trump and the whole trade war thing).

This is a generally applicable answer: IP rights hold power worldwide mostly because the no.1 country that wants them has military and economic dominance over most of the planet.

Re: FBI subpoenaed Apple for data of Sci-Hub founder

#45

Post by bilbo0s »

eatbitseveryday wrote: post #23
ytch wrote: post #9

That's why I decided dropping iCloud backup and enable locally iPhone encrypted backup.

Realize also that communication you have with others, for example via iMessage, may be stored at Apple if they have iCloud backup enabled.

Only if you have it enabled.

But it wouldn't matter anyway, that other party in the communication could easily be somewhere with phone service but no data. Or someone in the group sms could be on a non apple device. Boom, Just like that, your communications have been sent to multiple carriers, including your own. Those carriers all pinky swear that they won't do anything bad with your sms though. So I suppose it's not that much of a problem. /s

Why would anyone use a public network to communicate in secret? If you have a need for stealth communication with another individual, (maybe you're a dissident or what have you), then you should use the proper techniques. And, yes, keep your data encrypted on your own iPhone. Do not back it up to iCloud. Or Amazon Photos. Or Backblaze. Or Dropbox. Or etc etc etc.

Oh, and never, ever, use Android. You likely don't have the technical know how to make a commercially available android device private.

Re: FBI subpoenaed Apple for data of Sci-Hub founder

#46

Post by rusk »

cyrksoft wrote: post #43
boomboomsubban wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think its because peer review costs money, but they are largely unpaid for that work. So, there's no real answer beyond "capitalism."

What's exactly capitalistic about this? They charge for something they have no property or own. In my experience (and every researcher I know does this) researchers have their own websites where they publish a free pdf version of the research (without the format of the published paper, just a simpler pdf version) or even email it to you if you ask them to (those without a website, for example). I am not sure what exa…

> What's exactly capitalistic about this?

Squeezing as much profit as possible for shareholders while externalising costs. It’s a poster child when you think about it!

Re: FBI subpoenaed Apple for data of Sci-Hub founder

#47

Post by hollerith »

xNeil wrote: post #32

I'm not sure I understand the concept of paid access to scientific research, so I'd be grateful if someone with more knowledge of the topic could explain it to me. Governments fund universities, people donate large amounts of money to universities, and a large portion of the population has student debt because of how expensive tuition is. Why are they charging for access to research at these institutions then?

The universities aren't the ones collecting the money. In fact, they the main targets of the extortion.

Most professors care mostly about prestige (reputation for being smart, wise or innovative) and would prefer to ignore or disdain the economic and legal aspects of life. OK, that is a little unfair: most profs want to focus on their specialty and sometimes don't pay enough attention to how their actions interact with the law and the economy to affect university libraries far away.

Academic publishers, e.g., Elsevier, give professors prestige in exchange for the professors' assigning copyright (legal ownership) of the professor's writings to the publishers with the result that a university library (which is typically far away from the publishing professor's own university) must pay the publishers to give its students and faculty access the academic literature without constantly running into the paywalls that people who are not students or faculty run into.

Re: FBI subpoenaed Apple for data of Sci-Hub founder

#48

Post by sneak »

tandav wrote: post #29

“What Happens on your iPhone, Stays on your iPhone” - they said https://i.imgur.com/Dfk34yM.jpg

Location Services being on systemwide sends your location 24/7 to Apple. It's not just GPS reception, it also uploads the list of wifi MAC addresses it can see, with signal strengths, to improve its location fix.

Re: FBI subpoenaed Apple for data of Sci-Hub founder

#49

Post by ma2rten »

haxiomic wrote: post #26

Science Publisher Elsevier's reported profit margin is 38%, compared to Apple's 21% – there's lot of cash at stake for them and a big warchest to defend it For anyone looking to understand the background on the science publishing industry, how it ended up this way and why they will fight Sci-Hub so aggressively, I found this discussion really informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PriwCi6SzLo&t=8s&ab_channel=..…

I'm wondering why it's only 38%. They charge a lot and mostly work with volunteers. It should not cost 62% of what they charge to run a website to host some pdfs.

Re: FBI subpoenaed Apple for data of Sci-Hub founder

#50

Post by rusk »

jMyles wrote: post #33
kingsuper20 wrote: post #27

Given the provenance of most (all?) of the material on Sci-Hub, the copyright issues here seem laughable to me. Fruitless speculation about the FBI aside, you do have to wonder about the future of IP generally in the world. There's a sort of evolutionary pressure going on right now between different countries' approach to the matter and I can't say that the US-style rules will hold (or more realistically, be imposed)…

It seems so absolutely obvious that a jurisdiction adopting a "there is no such thing as IP" approach will have a huge advantage. What's the reason this hasn't happened?

Trade agreements. You can play ball by whatever rules you like, but in order for it to be meaningful you’ll have to get people to play with you.
Post reply on HN